Maine Republic Free State News, 3 Linnell Circle, Brunswick, Maine 04011
http://maine-patriot.com
1
Supreme Court Dockets Income Tax Challenge
“. . . if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?” — I Corinthians 14:8 — 10/20/12
Maine Republic Email Alert
“. . . that I should bear witness unto the truth.” — John 18:33 // David E. Robinson, Publisher
No.282A Colorado man’s challenge to
the IRS says that wages don’t count.
The government calls those who
argue that the income tax has no legal
foundation, “tax protesters” and labels
their arguments “frivolous.” And usually
judges toss their arguments out of court,
and assess them court costs on top of
taxes, interest and penalties; and
sometimes even threaten them if they
file further cases.
But now the U.S. Supreme Court —
the nine judges who sit on the bench in
Washington by virtue of their selection
by presidents and confirmation by the
U.S. Senate — has docketed exactly
that type of case. (also page 3)
No. 12-6169
Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, Petitioner
v.
Commission of Internal Revenue
Docketed: September 11, 2012
The results? Who knows, considering
the radical arguments offered by the pro
se plaintiff, Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, a
Colorado chiropractor who has been
involved in a number of business
ventures, including PureHealthSystems.
Among Maehr’s contentions is that
while the government has the legal
authority to tax, the Internal Revenue
Service has used “unlawful, unconstitutional,
unfair and biased” manipulations
to assess income taxes on that which
is not income – essentially salaries and
wages.
Basing his argument on 10 years’
worth of research into tax law, he
concludes that salaries and wages are
the result of the mutual agreement
among participants to exchange labor
for money – and that’s not income.
Income, he said, is the increased
value of an asset, such as interest on
money in a bank account, which can be
subjected to income tax.
He says his arguments repeatedly
have been tossed from courthouses —
in his case, nine times over the years —
and he’s anxious to see what the
Supreme Court justices may decide.
In his petition to the court, he said,
“The gravity of these fundamental law
questions have never been properly
adjudicated, and the evidence available
in fact proves without a doubt that the
taxation scheme that is being
implemented against the petitioner, and
all Americans, is fundamentally and
profoundly unlawful, unconstitutional,
unfair and biased, and is evidence of
ongoing, willful, deliberate, and
unconscionable fraud.”
WND contacted the office of the U.S.
Solicitor General, listed on the Supreme
Court website as the defense counsel for
the IRS, and office staff who answered
the phone refused to comment. WND
was transferred to an office for the U.S.
attorney general, where officials also
declined to comment.
Maehr says information about the
case is at the Foundation for Truth in Law:
http://www.foundationfortruthinlaw.org/
Officials with the Supreme Court said
that while the case has been docketed,
and a response from the IRS already has
been scheduled, the justices still must
hold a conference on the case to
determine whether, in fact, they will
review the arguments.
Maehr wrote in his petition for judicial
review that he’s been the victim of
administrative bludgeoning used by the
IRS to quell citizens with objections as
well as questions.
“Petitioner was denied due process,
over and over again. Petitioner’s evidence
was dismissed without consideration.
Petitioner was unlawfully assessed
outside lawful means. Petitioner’s
evidence that ‘income’ is not wages or
payment for labor is clearly supported by
court precedent. Petition was mistreated,
and the courts unlawfully ruled without
regard to respondent’s standing to be
acting against him,” he said.
“Respondent is taxing outside clear
constitutional parameters, presumptively
labeling he, and all Americans as
‘taxpayers,’ apart from any mechanism
of law. Respondent is wantonly promoting
the mandatory filing of the 1040 form
which is clearly in violation of the
Paperwork Reduction Act. Respondent
has not produced the law with the IR Code
which makes petitioner or any American
‘personally’ liable for filing the 1040 form,
let alone other ‘requirements.’”
A copy of a ruling from the 10th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, before
judges Michael Murphy, Bobby Baldock
and Harris Hartz, was included in Maehr’s
filing. It appears to support Maehr’s
argument, because the judges, without
responding to his questions and
challenges to the constitutionality of
the issue, labeled the claims “frivolous”
Maine Republic Free State News, 3 Linnell Circle, Brunswick, Maine 04011
http://maine-patriot.com
2
and claimed Maehr’s petition “contains
no valid challenges.”
Maehr’s arguments cite a wide range
of historical court and congressional
statements regarding taxes. For
example, Blacks Law Dictionary calls
income tax “a tax on the yearly profits
arising from property, professions, trades
and offices.”
Maehr argues that wages are not
“profits”; they are simply the result of
an exchange of labor for money.
Pointing out that businesses routinely
pay taxes on “profits,” he noted taxes
are not assessed on the expenses of the
business.
Simply, the labor of an individual is
the “expense” required to obtain the
money, so it is not “profit.” To
determine otherwise would be to subject
corporations such as Wal-Mart to
“income taxes” on 100 percent of their
cash register receipts, he argues.
The court itself said an 1883 case,
“It has been well said that, the
property which every man has in his
own labor, as it is the original
foundation of all other property, so it
is the most sacred and inviolable.”
In 1969, the court ruled: “Whatever
may constitute income, therefore, must
have the essential feature of gain to
the recipient. This was true when the 16th
amendment became effective. … No
gian; no income. … “Income is not
synonymous with receipts.”
And a 1946 case stated,
“Reasonable compensation for labor
or services rendered is not profit.”
“The elements of this case involve
respondent/IRS administrative functions
being implemented under color of law,”
Maehr wrote. “In 2003, petitioner began
requesting answers to constitutional
questions regarding respondent’s
positions in application of its taxation
process, but which, since 2003, have
been completely ignored and labeled as
‘frivolous’ and he was told that if he
wanted any answers, it would have to be
found ‘in the courts.’
“The essential, foundational, original
intent of Congress regarding ‘income’
taxation and tax authority has been slowly
perverted over the decades with actions
under color of law,” Maehr continued.
“The original intent was known long ago,
and supported by this honorable court,
but which have been twisted to mean
something completely different today.
Despite the quoted cases by respondent
in response to petition, claiming
arguments were only ‘frivolous,’ none of
these cited court cases have ever had
evidence in fact entered into the record,
or presented as evidence to refute
petitioner’s, or anyone else’s, lawful
challenges to ‘prove’ them ‘frivolous’
outside hearsay and presumption.”
Among the specific questions raised:
Is income tax a direct tax or an indirect
tax? What defined “income” when the
income tax was adopted? What is the
constitutional status of the IRS, and
when do the IRS administrative
procedures violate due process?
“The logical question to ask is, if
petitioner [the Plaintiff] is violating any
laws … why is he NOT charged with
criminal actions? Why is respondent [the
IRS] taking the circuitous route using
‘administrative’ ploys, summons, and
alleged ‘deficiency’ notices? The answer
is because it has deceived the courts,
and knows it has accomplices in
committing this easy fraud using
them, and it knows it cannot bring
criminal charges against petition due to
the record created by petition proving
no such ‘failure’ would stand up in court,
but would expose the ‘income’
taxation scam.”
The Supreme Court said that the
government’s response is due Oct. 11.
Maehr told WND that the IRS bases
its existence on the “premise that the
16th Amendment allows direct
unapportioned taxes on people, which it
does not.”
The fight is over the fact that when
one individual exchanges a $10 bill for
two $5 bills from another person, there
is no “profit.” Substituting labor for either
side of that agreement also does not
create “profit,” he said.
It’s actually not the first time the
challenge has been in court. WND
reported in 2007 when the Internal
Revenue Service lost a lawyer’s
challenge in front of a jury to prove a
constitutional foundation for the nation’s
income tax.
At the time, lawyer Tom Cryer told
WND after a jury acquitted him of two
criminal tax counts that “the IRS is a
fraud, backed up by intimidation and
extortion and by the sheer force of
taking peoples property and hardearned
money without any lawful
authorization whatsoever.”
Cryer, who has since died, told WND
that the simple truth is that income is
not necessarily any money that comes
to a person. Income is rather a
category such as profit and interest.
He said the free exchange of labor for
compensation has been upheld as a right
by the Supreme Court, but that doesn’t
necessarily make the compensation
income.
He said at the time if ever such an
argument were to be presented widely,
there could be huge changes required in
the way the federal government operates.
“The Founding Fathers intentionally
restricted the taxing powers of the new
federal government as a measure of
restraint on its size. By exceeding that
limited taxing authority the federal
government has been able to obtain
resources beyond its intended reach, and
that money has enabled the federal
government to exceed its authority,” he
said.
The jury in U.S. District Court in
Louisiana voted 12-0 finding Cryer, of
Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file
income taxes for two years. He had
been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing
to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and
2001.
At the time, spokesman Robert
Marvin in Washington’s IRS office told
WND that the Internal Revenue Code
provides for taxation on salaries or wages,
but when pressed for a specific citation
or constitutional provision, he said, “I
can’t comment.”
Maine Republic Free State News, 3 Linnell Circle, Brunswick, Maine 04011
http://maine-patriot.com
3
Commercial Law Applied
Learn To Play The Game
Authored by David E. Robinson
The principles, maxims and precepts of Commercial Law are eternal, unchanging and
unchangeable. They are expressed in the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the
New.
The law of commerce — unchanged for thousands of years — forms the underlying
foundation of all law on this planet; and for governments around the world. It is the law
of nations, and of everything that human civilization is built upon.
This is why Commercial Law is so powerful.
When you operate at the level of Commercial Law, by these precepts, nothing that is of
inferior statute can overturn or change it, or abrogate it, or meddle with it. It is the
fundamental source of all authority, power and functional reality.
https://www.createspace.com/3960715

Implant Removal Series

Read The Testimonials

Excerpts of material created by Galactic Connection may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Alexandra Meadors and www.galacticconnection.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. The Daily Blog page operates under a Creative Commons license. Information from our Daily Blog page may be re-distributed as long as proper attribution to the author and direction to their original content is provided. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of any material on this website without express and written permission from its author and owner is strictly prohibited. Thank you.

Privacy Policy

By subscribing to GalacticConnection.com you acknowledge that your name and e-mail address will be added to our database. As with all other personal information, only working affiliates of GalacticConnection.com have access to this data. We do not give GalacticConnection.com addresses to outside companies, nor will we ever rent or sell your email address. Any e-mail you send to GalacticConnection.com is completely confidential. Therefore, we will not add your name to our e-mail list without your permission. Continue reading...

Refund Policy

All refunds are subject to a 15% handling fee.
If a package has already been shipped the customer is still liable for the cost of the shipping and as such the shipping is not refundable. The refund will be done upon receipt of the returned package, contents intact and undamaged. The cost of return shipping is the customer's responsibility.